Clarke v. City of New York
- Sidney Stein
- 1:23-cv-02158
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Clarke v. City of New York, Judge Engelmayer indefinitely adjourned a conference after the parties reported settling in principle.
The plaintiffs, Brian A. Clarke and the other plaintiffs, and the City of New York; the order also concerns Magistrate Judge Stein’s possible handling of future proceedings.
What happened
In Clarke v. City of New York, the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in principle and planned to submit a written agreement for approval. The settlement conference was also postponed.
The court indefinitely adjourned the scheduled case-management conference. It did not approve the settlement or decide the parties’ underlying claims.
Judge Engelmayer encouraged the parties to consider consenting to have Magistrate Judge Stein handle the remaining proceedings, including settlement approval and any other legal questions. The parties could withhold consent without negative consequences.
The detailed version
- Clarke v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-02158
- Sidney Stein
- Mar. 6, 2024
Background The parties informed Magistrate Judge Stein, who had been handling settlement discussions, that they had reached a settlement in principle. They asked to postpone the settlement conference scheduled for March 13, 2024. Magistrate Judge Stein granted that request. The parties also stated that they planned to submit a written settlement agreement by March 29, 2024, for court approval under the procedure discussed in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
Order Because a settlement appeared imminent, the court adjourned indefinitely the case-management conference scheduled before the court for March 13, 2024. The order did not approve the settlement, enter judgment, or resolve the underlying claims.
The court also encouraged the parties to discuss whether they would voluntarily consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to have Magistrate Judge Stein conduct all further proceedings. If both parties consented, Magistrate Judge Stein would decide the settlement-approval application rather than recommend a decision to the district court, and would decide any additional legal questions that arose. The parties could withhold consent without negative consequences. The order stated that appeals from rulings made after consent would go directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.